You’d lose.
Most Catholics are aware that the Church teaches that the bread and wine really become the Body and Blood of Christ. But equally, every Catholic is well aware that what they chew and swallow tastes and feels and smells and looks in every sensory respect like bread and wine.
So what do they think is going on, according to you?
That’s fine: but then it’s not "attempted cannibalism."
It’s like the trinity, utter nonsense that they think is profound. It’s Jesus’ blood and meats, but it just tastes like bread and grape drank.
As I said, I’m not arguing that it is. Just saying that your position doesn’t disprove it. If anything, if the creator of the universe tells you to do something, I’d say that whatever stigma it has is reduced. So even if it were attempted cannibalism, grading on a curve, based on the people’s beliefs, I don’t find it objectionable.
Also notice he’s never defended cannibalism whereas you routinely and knee-jerkedly defend pretty much any transgression by anybody with an R after their name or who is a Catholic. So what was your stupid point again? I mean I’m betting he must have stopped beating his wife by now.
His point was to deflect this thread away from the fact that Hastert is a human piece of shit, who got votes for his “family values” party, attacked anyone else whose morals he deemed not worthy, while covering up the fact he liked sucking off teenage boys.
Hastert is now facing sentencing, and hisclear lying to investigators is not going to go in his favor.
Except you need to show that he also does NOT routinely defend anyone with a D after their name. Is it a bias towards a particular political party or a bias towards “innocent until proven guilty”. Bricker may have his faults, but I don’t see him treating Ds any different from Rs when it comes to public scandals like this.
I may have said something similar once.
[MASSIVE HIJACK]
It’s Len Cariou on the OCR. And Victor Garber as Anthony Hope!
[/MASSIVE HIJACK]
Holy crap. You’re right. I’m so embarrassed.
No I don’t. My point stands regardless of who else he defends. His modus operandi here is every time someone calls out a Republican or a Catholic for doing something shitty, he pops into say, “Oh yeah, what about this liberal guy who kinda sorta did something related to a similar thing that’s a bit like what that other guy did, huh, huh, huh?”
And the next thing you know we’re debating which has bigger testicles, the Mongolian Fruit Bat or the Madagascar Hissing Lemur or something equally esoteric and utterly unrelated to whatever the hell that Republican or Catholic did in the first place.
Besides, “you haven’t denied something ridiculous I’m accusing of,” is a pathetic argument. You may have noticed my subtle reference to the ol’ “when did you stop beating your wife,” chestnut.
Eh. I’ll let Bricker defend himself or not, but just note that that is a different argument than the one you originally made.
In other news that is actually relevant to the OP, it looks like we will be getting to see who supports the child-fellating piece of human shit that is Mr. Hastert.
Judge tells defense that Hastert support letters should be made public.
Good.
Now we will see who supports a man who secretly enjoys sucking underage teenage boy dicks, while telling everyone else what a moral, family man he is, and judging those he deems unworthy of his high morals.
Perhaps if any of these Hastert shit supporting people has any blowback, they can simply accuse their critics of being cannibals. That seems to be the only go-to strategy.
So if I routinely pick the defense, it’s bad when I defend the Catholic or the Republican and unremarkable otherwise?
Indeed, you’re correct.
Or even trying to pick an argument about how the argument is going. (Not you, Jack Batty - rather I’m looking at the usual suspects)
But by all means, lets try to forget that Hastert abused the boys he was teaching, and then went on to pretend to be a “family values” Republican, while paying off his victims.
Actually, it’s the fruit bat with the slightly larger testes due to its vitamin C intake.
That’s the problem (well, one of them) - you choose a side to argue based on who you think you’re defending, not explore the subject on the evidence and reasoning. You are presenting mere advocacy as analysis, and you typically have to resort to mere pettifoggery and bullshit to do so when you choose, as you always do, to defend organizations to which your loyalty is absolute.
The rest of us are engaged in *fighting *ignorance, and that includes your own.
So Dennis Hastert did two things.
Molested boys
and paid those boys to keep quiet about it.
So the post starts with:
**another family values Republican]/b]
So what is THAT supposed to mean if not “hey look at the hypocrite that spouts family values but sucks off little boys” So in what way is sucking off little boys any more anti-family values than rape or murder?
The title also says ** A scummy child-molesting Republican. What a shock.
[/quote]
What is THAT supposed to mean if not “Republicans molest children more frequently than others so we are actually not at all shocked that a Republican has been found molesting children” So in what way are Republicans any more likely to molest children than anyone else?
What do YOU think the post was supposed to mean?
So I can agree that Dennis Hastert is a scumbag but the notion that this says something about Republicans generally? I don’t see how you get there. Is the Op actually referring to the payoff somehow?
Then why the reference to family values?
Why can’t you point out all the high-ranking Democrats doing the same thing, if you think that Republicans are being unfairly typecast in this thread?
. . . . . . . . Because that’s what wakes him a hypocrite!
Hastert is a hypocrite because he is a “family values” politician who has been exposed as a child-molestor.
He’s not a hypocrite because he’s a Republican. I don’t think anyone here has suggested that, and if anyone has, they’re a twit.
What the OP and other posters have suggested is an apparently strong pattern of hypocrisy among self-proclaimed family-values Republican politicians.
Refute it if you believe it to be untrue.
Guess what? Scummy Family Values Republican Tom DeLay supports Dennis Hastert.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/dennis-hastert-tom-delay-letters-court-sentencing-222344
Yeah. Poor, poor, Dennis Hastert is the real victim here. Republican and Man of God, Dennis Hastert doesn’t deserve to be persecuted just because he molested some boys. Hastert was just practicing the Lord’s Values. Because of his integrity. Which Tom DeLay has totally seen. Intimately.